Darwin's theory

PopePalpatine

Tordelback wrote: »

You've heard of stratigraphy, right?

That would require his IQ to at least treble.

Canis Lupus

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

There is a lot your science cannot explain. Which Creation Science does.

Apart from saying 'god done it', what knowledge gaps has has creation science babble credibly explained that the actual scientific community hasn't?

smcgiff

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

It maybe simply a choice.

I wonder at the sexuality of people that make this claim. There must be some ambiguity as to their orientation.

For myself there is no doubt. There are no circumstances where I could see myself fancying a guy. (cue many breaking hearts )

Delirium

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Creation Science is one theory. With a lot of evidence and reason behind it. 'Science' in its narrower sense as you use it, evolution, carbon dating, paleontology, etc is another theory. Agreeing in some parts, differing in others. And also a valid avenue for research. But to say it is definitively the correct theory is hugely premature. There is a lot your science cannot explain. Which Creation Science does. Keep working on you side and we will see who is right.

Similarly for gayness. It is not clear what causes it, even for modern scientists, geneticists, etc as you are debating here. It maybe simply a choice. It maybe societal. It may be a disorder, aberration. Or it may be that God made them that way. It really is too early to know a clear answer on this. For the moment, keep an open mind an be tolerant.

Creation Science isn't a theory, it's a literal interpretation of the bible.

Wibbs

SW wrote: »

Creation Science isn't a theory, it's a literal interpretation of the bible.

Which itself isn't internally consistent. I've read a fair bit of the CS stuff over the years and found very little of value within it. Well save for one example. A US dentist IIRC was claiming that Neandertals et al looked like that because they humans just like us, but were very very old, 100's of years old like the bible claims people could be "pre flood". Interesting twist on the evidence. However some of his conclusions would suggest that some of these specimens were older than the ages given for them. Obviously not 300 years old or any of that, but 50's or 60's rather than the 30 to 40 usually given them*. He convinced me on that score. He also piqued my interest in how he reckoned a few of the specimens were reconstructed incorrectly.








*the La Chappelle neandertal for example. When he was dug up first in the 1900's he was nicknamed the "old man", because, well he looked old. Barely a tooth in his head, major jaw recession, smooth skull and riddled with arthritis. Latterly his age is given as around 40. Yet other dudes also supposed to be 40 look like robust and healthy 40 year olds would look. They have great teeth, little arthritis etc.

endacl

That's the central flaw with creation 'theory'. It needs a narrative requiring a justification. If Darwin had never made that voyage on the Beagle the process of evolution by natural selection would still have been noticed, observed, and described. Wallace's paper would have emerged at the same time. If not Darwin or Wallace, then certainly some other bright spark. Creation 'Science' requires a bible. It could and would not have been brainfarted out otherwise. It could, granted, have been based on any one of thousands of creation myths from around the world. Why not the creation story of the Mongols, the Toltecs, or the Vikings? They're equally as ludicrous, and yet equally as valid.

All a theory of evolution by natural selection requires is a clever person to notice it. Creation science needs a fairytale to justify. Take away the fairytale and the 'science' collapses.

It's fcuking laughable.

J C

smcgiff wrote: »

Creation Science is as Scientific as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is Democratic.

One is run by Creationists who are leading conventional scientists ... and the other is run by Atheists who adore Kim Il-sung. He fills the 'God-hole' in their little hearts.:)

smcgiff

J C wrote: »

One is run by Creationists who are leading conventional scientists ... and the other is run by Atheists who adore Kim Il-sung. He fills the 'God-hole' in their little hearts.:)

I'll have to look up the word conventional in the dictionary, I had a different meaning to 'bat shít crazy' in mind.

Roger Hassenforder

J C wrote: »

... ... so how do you explain polystrate* fossils that extend through different layers?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/lifesciences-polystrate_fossil.jpg

http://static-www.icr.org/i/articles/af/polystrate_trees_wide.jpg
Either these trees stood there for millions of years, while the rock layers were laid down ... or they were rapidly buried during the Flood. * periods of rapid sedimentation
I'm gong with the latter!!!

I'm going with the latter too.

*all bullshyte makey-up creationist words have been deleted.

MRnotlob606

i am one of the last surving apes, somebody save me,

endacl

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

i am one of the last surving apes, somebody save me,

If you're evolved enough to open an account and type a post, I'd say you're safe enough.

Canis Lupus

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Does anyone genuinely still think he isn't trolling? Come on.

I always thought he was but he has been at it literally for years in the Atheist forum so he's either the most dedicated troll ever or actually believes it. Either way there's no point engaging him. God himself could actually appear to JC and tell him evolution is real and JC would still not believe.

Squeedily Spooch

"Creation science" isn't a thing. It's basically the equivalent of using Lord of the Rings to explain where the Grand Canyon came from, it happened when the earth split apart and swallowed up Sauron's armies after Frodo destroyed the one ring at Mount Doom. The evidence is there for all to see people!*



*no evidence actually there, so fits into "creation science" accurately

Squeedily Spooch

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Creation Science is one theory. With a lot of evidence and reason behind it. 'Science' in its narrower sense as you use it, evolution, carbon dating, paleontology, etc is another theory. Agreeing in some parts, differing in others. And also a valid avenue for research. But to say it is definitively the correct theory is hugely premature. There is a lot your science cannot explain. Which Creation Science does. Keep working on you side and we will see who is right.

Similarly for gayness. It is not clear what causes it, even for modern scientists, geneticists, etc as you are debating here. It maybe simply a choice. It maybe societal. It may be a disorder, aberration. Or it may be that God made them that way. It really is too early to know a clear answer on this. For the moment, keep an open mind an be tolerant.

Why would God make something he hates? If being gay is a choice then free will would dictate people do it of their own accord, going against God's wishes. If it's not a choice then its God's wish they be gay, and he's fine with them being hated.

endacl

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Why would God make something he hates? If being gay is a choice then free will would dictate people do it of their own accord, going against God's wishes. If it's not a choice then its God's wish they be gay, and he's fine with them being hated.

if you think reason and logic will work, you're in for a bit of a let-down.

M5

J C wrote: »

One is run by Creationists who are leading conventional scientists ... and the other is run by Atheists who adore Kim Il-sung. He fills the 'God-hole' in their little hearts.:)

Kim probably got his tips from the bible/RCC. Demand worship on punishment of death, take over education systems, Mass propaganda etc, all used by the RCC in the past to get into the position they are today

A dictators handbook

endacl

M5 wrote: »

Kim probably got his tips from the bible/RCC. Demand worship on punishment of death, take over education systems, Mass propaganda etc, all used by the Rev in the past to get into the position they are today

A dictators handbook

So where did he get the idea for the ridiculous haircut?!?

M5

endacl wrote: »

So where did he get the idea for the ridiculous haircut?!?

Check mate! Well played!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

... they aren't in the 'Ordovician' layers for the very simple (circular) reason that it would immediately be re-named 'Quaternary', if they were found there.:)

No, it wouldn't. There's a clear order, broken only when the layers themselves are displaced.

AtomicHorror

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Does anyone genuinely still think he isn't trolling? Come on.

If J C is a troll he's a troll with an encyclopaedic knowledge of scripture, a solid knowledge of young Earth creationism and a passable knowledge of intelligent design horse****. A troll who has been trolling on these topics for many years and thousands of posts.

If I found out he was a troll, I'd feel compelled to just play along anyway out of respect for the sheer awesomeness of the epic scale of it.

smcgiff

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If J C is a troll he's a troll with an encyclopaedic knowledge of scripture, a solid knowledge of young Earth creationism and a passable knowledge of intelligent design horse****. A troll who has been trolling on these topics for many years and thousands of posts.

If I found out he was a troll, I'd feel compelled to just play along anyway out of respect for the sheer awesomeness of the epic scale of it.

J C's avatar is a Looney Tunes character. Most apt avatar ever

Calibos

If anyone has seen the trailer for the new Dumb & Dumber film, one of the characters has pretended to be in a vegetative state for 20 years since the events of the last film in order to troll his friend. JC turning out to be a troll would be at that level of legendary trollitude worthy of worldwide acclaim. Come to think of it. It's the perfect way out for him when he finally comes to his senses.

Frank Bullitt

When you are just tired with dealing with creationists or christians, let Christopher Hitchens sort it out.

This mans intellect is terrifying.

EoghanIRL

endacl wrote: »

That's the central flaw with creation 'theory'. It needs a narrative requiring a justification. If Darwin had never made that voyage on the Beagle the process of evolution by natural selection would still have been noticed, observed, and described. Wallace's paper would have emerged at the same time. If not Darwin or Wallace, then certainly some other bright spark. Creation 'Science' requires a bible. It could and would not have been brainfarted out otherwise. It could, granted, have been based on any one of thousands of creation myths from around the world. Why not the creation story of the Mongols, the Toltecs, or the Vikings? They're equally as ludicrous, and yet equally as valid.

All a theory of evolution by natural selection requires is a clever person to notice it. Creation science needs a fairytale to justify. Take away the fairytale and the 'science' collapses.

It's fcuking laughable.

Ever notice that when someone makes a valid point like this then jc doesn't reply to it .

Or he will avoid the question and ramble on about another story .

Claims to be a creationist and a contempory scientist . Oh wait ..

endacl

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Ever notice that when someone makes a valid point like this then jc doesn't reply to it .

Or he will avoid the question and ramble on about another story .

Claims to be a creationist and a contempory scientist . Oh wait ..

That's why I don't really engage in a 'this vs that' dialogue with creationists. I don't post much over on the 'spurious nonsense thread. I (broadly) refuse to argue the merits of evolution by natural selection vs intelligent design (or whatever they're labelling it at the moment). To do so would be to concede a validity to creationism that it neither merits nor can support.

The former is a well considered, evidentially supported, observable, predictable, demonstrable theory. The latter exists only to counter a perceived threat from the former.

The two 'sides' are not equal and opposite. Far from it. They're not even comparable. Whatever they're 'sides' of, it's not the same thing. It's reality vs insecurity. And that's all it is.

endacl

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The thing is though, if you just ignore and/or ridicule, people popping in to such threads who don't have the scientific background required to know the claims are nonsense will look at it and think 'maybe he has a point'. If you respond with evidence saying why they're wrong, and why evolution is true, you're more likely to win random viewers over.

Easier said than done though.

I hear ya. I just don't have the patience/bull5hit tolerance required. Fair play to those who do.

obplayer

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The thing is though, if you just ignore and/or ridicule, people popping in to such threads who don't have the scientific background required to know the claims are nonsense will look at it and think 'maybe he has a point'. If you respond with evidence saying why they're wrong, and why evolution is true, you're more likely to win random viewers over.

Easier said than done though.

Indeed, it's the only reason I get involved in these debates. When so many people believe this garbage we simply cannot just ignore it's proponents, we must demonstrate to the not yet brainwashed what reality means.

EoghanIRL

Jc claims that 90 percent of your neighbours are Christian .
Yet look how many people agree with his views on boards.

osarusan

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Jc claims that 90 percent of your neighbours are Christian .
Yet look how many people agree with his views on boards.

those two groups are hardly mutually exclusive. It would be unfair to conflate the two.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That would require his IQ to at least treble.

As I'm a member of Mensa, that would be as impossible ... as spontaneous evolution.:cool: